| Revision as of 12:14, 15 January 2016 view sourceSitush (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers260,192 edits →Statement by {Non-party}: beware← Previous edit | Revision as of 12:15, 15 January 2016 view source Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk | contribs)Edit filter managers, Administrators87,215 edits →Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise: statementNext edit → | ||
| Line 39: | Line 39: | ||
| === Statement by Cassianto === | === Statement by Cassianto === | ||
| === Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise === | === Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise === | ||
| This is the same tired old situation we've seen dozens of times. Banned serial sockpuppeter A wants to harass editor B, so he seeks out unrelated editor C who he perceives as being potentially hostile to B and tries to enlist him as an ally, posting negative allegations about B on their talkpage. If C has a brain and a sense of human decency, he will easily recognize the game for what it is, and immediately remove the banned user's posting themselves. If not, then B is left with a dilemma: either he leaves the offending posting in place, or he requests intervention from third parties (which means losing time and drawing wider attention to the harassing postings on noticeboards, giving the banned user even more publicity), or he opts to quickly revert the banned user himself, risking an angry reaction from C. It has long been my firm position that the correct way of dealing with this is to choose option three, and be uncompromising and unapologetic about it. If C then decides to raise a stink (as they all too often do), so much the worse for them. | |||
| At this point I'll only comment on the charge of "involved" admin action. No, it wasn't. As we all know, an admin doesn't become "]" with an editor if he has interacted with them purely in an administrative function. And we don't let users make themselves immune from admin action by simply opting to react to it with abuse towards the admin in question and then claiming their own abuse to be grounds for "involvement". This is exactly what happened both between me and the banned troll in question here (]), and between me and The Rambling Man, so I was (and still am) uninvolved with either. I intervened with an administrative warning against The Rambling Man the other day in a completely unrelated matter, because I found him edit-warring over some trivial squabble on the refdesk talkpages . To this, TRM reacted with this stream of invective, including even a threat of counter-blocking (Now, incidentally, ''that's'' indeed a clear expression of intended misuse of admin tools on ''his'' part that would deserve a desysopping!). This was the full extent of intraction between TRM and me by the time banned "Vote (X)" decided to piggy-back on the situation with the abusive posting in question. TRM displayed his lack of competence by rewarding it with friendly encouragement, and then chose to play the tired old "but there wasn't any proof it was a banned user" card when I removed it. I gave him two very clear warnings about it, he chose to edit-war the banned troll's posting back in on the page nevertheless, so I blocked, as I would have blocked any other user in that situation – still acting from the same position of legitimate uninvolvement both with respect to the banned user and with respect to him. (The fact that the banned user's harassment happened to be directed against myself is entirely immaterial to this.) ] ] 12:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC) | |||
| === Statement by Johnuniq === | === Statement by Johnuniq === | ||
| A banned user has caused a tremendous amount of disruption by frequently posting trolling messages. As in past cases, the only defense is ], yet it is not possible to ''deny'' while demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt to uninvolved editors that a particular post was from the banned user. Some editors resist attempts to revert posts and that generates considerable disruption as the small number of people willing to patrol the area know that any fuss encourages the troll to redouble their efforts. | A banned user has caused a tremendous amount of disruption by frequently posting trolling messages. As in past cases, the only defense is ], yet it is not possible to ''deny'' while demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt to uninvolved editors that a particular post was from the banned user. Some editors resist attempts to revert posts and that generates considerable disruption as the small number of people willing to patrol the area know that any fuss encourages the troll to redouble their efforts. | ||
Revision as of 12:15, 15 January 2016
Requests for arbitration
Arbitration Committee proceedings- recent changes
- purge this page
- view or discuss this template
| Request name | Motions | Initiated | Votes |
|---|---|---|---|
| Future Perfect at Sunrise | 15 January 2016 | {{{votes}}} |
| Case name | Links | Evidence due | Prop. Dec. due |
|---|---|---|---|
| Palestine-Israel articles 5 | (t) (ev / t) (ws / t) (pd / t) | 21 Dec 2024 | 11 Jan 2025 |
No cases have recently been closed (view all closed cases).
Clarification and Amendment requests| Request name | Motions | Case | Posted |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amendment request: American politics 2 | none | (orig. case) | 15 January 2025 |
No arbitrator motions are currently open.
| Shortcuts
About this page Use this page to request the committee open an arbitration case. To be accepted, an arbitration request needs 4 net votes to "accept" (or a majority). Arbitration is a last resort. WP:DR lists the other, escalating processes that should be used before arbitration. The committee will decline premature requests. Requests may be referred to as "case requests" or "RFARs"; once opened, they become "cases". Before requesting arbitration, read the arbitration guide to case requests. Then click the button below. Complete the instructions quickly; requests incomplete for over an hour may be removed. Consider preparing the request in your userspace. To request enforcement of an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement. To clarify or change an existing arbitration ruling, see Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment.
Guidance on participation and word limits Unlike many venues on Misplaced Pages, ArbCom imposes word limits. Please observe the below notes on complying with word limits.
General guidance
|
lists.wikimedia.org. In your request, you should briefly (in 1-2 sentences) include (a) why you need additional words and (b) a broad outline of what you hope to discuss in your extended submission. The Committee endeavors to act upon extension requests promptly and aims to offer flexibility where warranted.
Future Perfect at Sunrise
Initiated by QEDK (T 📖 C) at 09:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Involved parties
- QEDK (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), filing party
- The Rambling Man (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- StuRat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Cassianto (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
- Future Perfect at Sunrise (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
- Confirmation that all parties are aware of the request
- Confirmation that other steps in dispute resolution have been tried
- Special:Diff/699489271#WP:Civility Violation by Future Perfect at Sunrise
- Threads at FPAS' talkpage (User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise Special:Diff/698546538#"because it's a banned user; can't you read the page history?" ?)
Statement by QEDK
I would probably not have cared except for this thinly veiled threat which I received from FPAS (Special:Diff/699646315#Your suggestion at ANI) for receiving a message from an IP, (which happened to be one of the many owned by Vote (X) for Change). It was promptly rev-deled and now, oversighted as defamatory. Funnily enough, his threat that I shouldn't restore it was useless because I'm not an admin. The first time I read it, the only thing I felt was that he was incompetent (don't remember anything libellous about it). Anyway, I didn't save a copy and don't remember any of it. I would elaborate on the issue with FPAS which came up on ANI but it'd be better if the really involved parties spoke for themselves. The diff which caused the row at ANI (Special:Diff/698543562). Overall, FPAS has failed to be polite, assume good faith and executed involved blocks which go against policy and sets a precedent for admin abuse. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 09:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
- Reply to Johnuniq: Hey, I don't know about you but
unless you want to be held responsible for the truth of every single word of it just as if you had written it originally yourself
seems like a threat hid inside a well-written web of obfuscation and since it was a direct reply to me, the responsibility interpreting it lies with me and I've done so. Also, your link to the ANI archive is redundant as I've already included it in the "Confirmation" subsection of this case. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:28, 15 January 2016 (UTC) - Reply to Dweller: As the filing party, I've done so. --QEDK (T 📖 C) 11:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by The Rambling Man
A 48-hour block with talk-page revoked was placed on me by FPAS with the block summary "harassment, proxying for banned editors" for me restoring a response on my own talkpage to an IP who had pointed me to some interesting behaviour from FPAS. The block was rejected by an uninvolved admin 17 minutes later and I was unblocked (with the unblock summary Over-reaction, and policy is not as clear about edits to one's own talk page as implied by this block). In my opinion, it was an involved block from what appears to be a trigger-happy individual who appears to have a history of problematic contributions. If FPAS had spent some time explaining to me on my talkpage who the IP was and why he would have preferred me not to restore the material, or if FPAS had requested intervention from another admin, or even if FPAS had provided a talkpage warning with relevant links instead of using threatening and bad faith edit summaries, none of this would have been problematic. That's all I'll contribute to this. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by StuRat
Statement by Cassianto
Statement by Future Perfect at Sunrise
This is the same tired old situation we've seen dozens of times. Banned serial sockpuppeter A wants to harass editor B, so he seeks out unrelated editor C who he perceives as being potentially hostile to B and tries to enlist him as an ally, posting negative allegations about B on their talkpage. If C has a brain and a sense of human decency, he will easily recognize the game for what it is, and immediately remove the banned user's posting themselves. If not, then B is left with a dilemma: either he leaves the offending posting in place, or he requests intervention from third parties (which means losing time and drawing wider attention to the harassing postings on noticeboards, giving the banned user even more publicity), or he opts to quickly revert the banned user himself, risking an angry reaction from C. It has long been my firm position that the correct way of dealing with this is to choose option three, and be uncompromising and unapologetic about it. If C then decides to raise a stink (as they all too often do), so much the worse for them.
At this point I'll only comment on the charge of "involved" admin action. No, it wasn't. As we all know, an admin doesn't become "WP:INVOLVED" with an editor if he has interacted with them purely in an administrative function. And we don't let users make themselves immune from admin action by simply opting to react to it with abuse towards the admin in question and then claiming their own abuse to be grounds for "involvement". This is exactly what happened both between me and the banned troll in question here (User:Vote (X) for Change), and between me and The Rambling Man, so I was (and still am) uninvolved with either. I intervened with an administrative warning against The Rambling Man the other day in a completely unrelated matter, because I found him edit-warring over some trivial squabble on the refdesk talkpages . To this, TRM reacted with this stream of invective, including even a threat of counter-blocking (Now, incidentally, that's indeed a clear expression of intended misuse of admin tools on his part that would deserve a desysopping!). This was the full extent of intraction between TRM and me by the time banned "Vote (X)" decided to piggy-back on the situation with the abusive posting in question. TRM displayed his lack of competence by rewarding it with friendly encouragement, and then chose to play the tired old "but there wasn't any proof it was a banned user" card when I removed it. I gave him two very clear warnings about it, he chose to edit-war the banned troll's posting back in on the page nevertheless, so I blocked, as I would have blocked any other user in that situation – still acting from the same position of legitimate uninvolvement both with respect to the banned user and with respect to him. (The fact that the banned user's harassment happened to be directed against myself is entirely immaterial to this.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:15, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Johnuniq
A banned user has caused a tremendous amount of disruption by frequently posting trolling messages. As in past cases, the only defense is WP:DENY, yet it is not possible to deny while demonstrating beyond reasonable doubt to uninvolved editors that a particular post was from the banned user. Some editors resist attempts to revert posts and that generates considerable disruption as the small number of people willing to patrol the area know that any fuss encourages the troll to redouble their efforts.
Similar problems arose from WP:ARBR&I and the situation was resolved with this motion: "To reduce disruption, the Committee resolves that no editor may restore any reverted edit made by a banned editor .
"
Whatever the outcome from this case request, the disruption from the banned user will continue, and my suggestion would be for the Committee to apply a form of the above motion for the banned user at the heart of this dispute. If anyone is concerned that an editor is over-zealous in the removal of posts, concerns should be raised at WP:AE. WP:AE should also handle any cases of editors resisting the removal of such posts.
This case request should not be accepted as there is no suggestion of anything other than an isolated incident. I do not see any threat in the diffs in QEDK's statement, and the diff concerning incivility was handled in this ANI archive. Johnuniq (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Dweller
I suggest that Cassianto, who was blocked, without warning by FPAS, be added as a party. See this discussion.
For my part, I have concerns about FPAS' extreme incivility ("Fuck off troll" is no way for an admin to address another user, and on top of an RfC largely reflecting on TPAS's incivility), an INVOLVED block and blocking without warning. Any one of those would, in my view, be cause for ArbCom to accept this case. All three? It's rather alarming. --Dweller (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Only in death
Contrary to Johanniq's last diff, this is not an isolated incident and nothing was actually dealt with regarding the incivility by FPAS. It was closed (as is usual for civility violations involving administrators) with the usual 'oh they are dealing in a difficult area' excuses and swept under the rug. It is never acceptable for an administrator to answer a good faith enquiry from an editor who is under no sanctions and in good standing with 'Fuck off troll'. FPAS' problems with incivility are not new. Pretty much everyone who has had to deal with FPAS knows to either ignore it, or just avoid them because it is highly unlikely any action will be taken given the low regard the civility policies/pillar is given by administrators, arbcom, and the WMF. Comments from his RFC generally fall into three camps 'he is incivil', 'he is incivil but we are going to excuse it', and 'not going to address the civility'. Very very few people who commented there actually were willing to say 'he is a civil person to collaborate with'. And that was in 2008, I have yet to notice a significant improvement in his dealings with others when he enforces (in his opinion)'the rules'. FPAS likes to edit others talkpages when in his enforcer mode. Quite apart from the stupidity of the advice in general (how the hell am I supposed to know *in advance* that an IP user is a sock of a banned user, check every IP comment on my talkpage to see if they have a pattern of edits relating elsewhere? Check SPI? Call Derek Acorah?) its a pointless edit. A day later and all it does is serve FPAS in demonstrating their authority. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:36, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by Sitush
I have no idea what has been going on at the Reference Desks, nor regarding TRM's block. However, if the main issue is incivility then please beware: there are a host of admins (and at least one arb) who periodically use words that some people (not me) find offensive, and that includes one who is currently the subject of case that is presently open. This could be the thin edge of a very thick wedge, and it isn't as it we've got that many active admins here already. Admins are human, too. - Sitush (talk) 12:14, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Statement by {Non-party}
Other editors are free to make relevant comments on this request as necessary. Comments here should address why or why not the Committee should accept the case request or provide additional information.
Clerk notes
- This area is used for notes by the clerks (including clerk recusals).
Future Perfect at Sunrise: Arbitrators' opinion on hearing this matter <0/0/0/0>-Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise">
Vote key: (Accept/decline/recuse/other)